Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.

<h4>Background</h4>Case-only designs have been used since late 1980's. In these, as opposed to case-control or cohort studies for instance, only cases are required and are self-controlled, eliminating selection biases and confounding related to control subjects, and time-invariant c...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sandra Nordmann, Lucie Biard, Philippe Ravaud, Marina Esposito-Farèse, Florence Tubach
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/05b3151a10cd4d9b807a108ac673da6c
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:<h4>Background</h4>Case-only designs have been used since late 1980's. In these, as opposed to case-control or cohort studies for instance, only cases are required and are self-controlled, eliminating selection biases and confounding related to control subjects, and time-invariant characteristics. The objectives of this systematic review were to analyze how the two main case-only designs - case-crossover (CC) and self-controlled case series (SCCS) - have been applied and reported in pharmacoepidemiology literature, in terms of applicability assumptions and specificities of these designs.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We systematically selected all reports in this field involving case-only designs from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 15, 2010. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The analysis included 93 reports 50 (54%) of CC and 45 (48%) SCCS, 2 reports combined both designs. In 12 (24%) CC and 18 (40%) SCCS articles, all applicable validity assumptions of the designs were fulfilled, respectively. Fifty (54%) articles (15 CC (30%) and 35 (78%) SCCS) adequately addressed the specificities of the case-only analyses in the way they reported results.<h4>Conclusions/significance</h4>Our systematic review underlines that implementation of CC and SCCS designs needs to be more rigorous with regard to validity assumptions, as well as improvement in results reporting.